MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975336752 · doi:10.1271/bbb.60540

Phylogenetic Analysis of the Gut Bacterial Microflora of the Fungus-Growing Termite<i>Odontotermes formosanus</i>

2007· article· en· W1975336752 on OpenAlexaff
Naoya Shinzato, M Muramatsu, Toru Matsui, Yoshio Watanabe

Bibliographic record

VenueBioscience Biotechnology and Biochemistry · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInsect and Arachnid Ecology and Behavior
Canadian institutionsNutrasource
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyBacteroidetesFirmicutesPhylotypePhylogenetic treeActinobacteriaProteobacteria16S ribosomal RNAFungusRestriction fragment length polymorphismBotanyPhylogeneticsMicrobiologyZoologyGeneticsBacteriaGenePolymerase chain reaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We constructed a bacterial 16S rRNA gene clone library from the gut microbial community of O. formosanus and phylogenetically analyzed it in order to contribute to the evolutional study of digestive symbiosis and method development for termite control. After screening by restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) analysis, 56 out of 280 clones with unique RFLP patterns were sequenced and phylogenetically analyzed. The representative phylotypes were affiliated to four phylogenetic groups, Firmicutes, the Bacteroidetes/Chlorobi group, Proteobacteria, and Actinobacteria of the domain Bacteira. No one clone affiliated with the phylum Spirochaetes was identified, in contrast to the case of wood-feeding termites. The phylogenetic analysis revealed that nearly half of the representative clones (25 phylotypes) formed monophyletic clusters with clones obtained from other termite species, especially with the sequences retrieved from fungus-growing termites. These results indicate that the presence of termite-specific bacterial lineages implies a coevolutional relationship of gut microbes and host termites.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations72
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioscience Biotechnology and BiochemistrySame topicInsect and Arachnid Ecology and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207